Chilcot inquiry: Iraq invasion had no 'legal basis in international law'

The invasion of Iraq had no "legal basis in international law", the
senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.

Sir Michael, who was the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the invasion, told the inquiry he disagreed with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, that military intervention was lawful.

"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," he said in a written statement.

"In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the (United Nations) Security Council, and had no other basis in international law."

Jack Straw, then the foreign secretary, rejected advice that the war would be unlawful, the inquiry heard.

Sir Michael wrote to Mr Straw on January 24, 2003 to express concerns about comments he made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.

Mr Straw told Mr Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".

Sir Michael commented that this was "completely wrong from a legal point of view".

He wrote in his letter to Mr Straw: "I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."

Sir Michael said Mr Straw held a meeting with him after this but did not accept his advice.

He told the inquiry: "He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position.

"When he had been at the Home Office, he had often been advised things were unlawful but he had gone ahead anyway and won in the courts."

Sir Michael said this was "probably the first and only occasion" that a minister rejected his legal advice in this way.

Sir Michael said he did not agree with Lord Goldsmith's statement on the eve of the invasion that Security Resolution 1441 - passed in November 2002 requiring Iraq to give up its supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - together with earlier resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, provided sufficient authorisation.

He also rejected Lord Goldsmith's earlier view that 1441 was capable of reviving the earlier 1991 authorisations without the need for a further resolution of the Security Council.

However, declassified documents released by the inquiry show that, in December 2002, he wrote to Lord Goldsmith's office suggesting it was possible to argue that 1441 did provide the authorisation for military action.

In his letter, Sir Michael said his "first view" was that 1441 did not in itself authorise the use of force or revive the authorisations in the earlier resolutions.

However, he then went on to offer a "second view" - that 1441 did contain "a conditional authorisation" to use force if Iraq failed to comply with its provisions and there was then a further discussion in the Security Council.

"On this view, the council has already, by (Security Council Resolution) SCR 1441, decided that Iraq is still in material breach of its obligations, having been given a final opportunity to do so, and pending a further discussion of the issue in the Council," he wrote.

However, he cautioned that there would be "possible difficulties" with this approach.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Sir Michael's deputy at the time, is also reportedly planning to tell the inquiry that the conflict was not lawful without a second United Nations resolution.

Miss Wilmshurst became the only British civil servant to quit over the war when she resigned days before the first attacks on Iraq, telling her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a ''crime of aggression''.